201Gaz. 46482 Compensation (as stated)

1. Materne;

2. Objection;

3. Transmittion;

4. Transmittal leave:

5. Forwarding.

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1

Attorney Gangwon-gu et al.

○ Bank Co., Ltd.

Law Firm Seo-Un, Attorney Seo-Un et al.

[Defendant-Appellee]

May 31, 2012

July 5, 2012

1. The defendant pays to the plaintiff Song-tae, 28, 300, 608, and 82, 104, 877, 398, 597, and 19,232, 495, and 32, 164, 312, and 5% interest per annum from December 12, 2008 to May 24, 201, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. All of the plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-third of the costs of lawsuit is assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendant: 40, 429, 440 won to the Plaintiff Song Tae-tae, 118, 721, 253 won to the Plaintiff Lee Tae-tae, and the Plaintiff Song-tae

4,855, 139 won, 27, 474, 994 won, 45, 949, 018 won, and each of them, to the Plaintiff Songju, ○.

From December 12, 2008 to the date on which a copy of the complaint of this case was served, 5% per annum, and the following:

D. The interest rate of 20% per annum shall be paid from the day of full payment to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From 2004 to 204, Plaintiff Lee ○-○ opened a fund and made investment returns from 7.9 to 75.74% per annum by joining various funds by means of the Plaintiff Song-tae, who is the principal bank, or her husband, or acting as her husband, her child, her child, her husband, her child, and her husband.

B. On January 2007, from around December 2008 to around December 2008, Plaintiff Lee ○○ subscribed each of the funds (hereinafter “each of the funds of this case”) as indicated in the following table at the △△△△’s request, which was the Defendant’s employee, to the fund of this case, but the redemption was made in order to cause loss to the investment principal.

(unit: (C) On November 2007, 2007 to December 12, 2007, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant about the occurrence of the loss of each of the instant funds. On May 7, 2009, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to compensate for the loss incurred by investing each of the instant funds in an unjust solicitation.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 20, Eul evidence 1 through 5 (including each number number for the witness), the witness's testimony at △△△△△△△, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether liability for damages arises;

A. The parties' assertion

Although each of the funds of this case was classified as the primary risk goods, the Plaintiffs did not explain such risk in soliciting the Plaintiff ○○○ to invest in each of the funds of this case, and thereby suffered damages as above from the Plaintiffs. As such, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiffs for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as the employer of Korea △△△△△△, as the Defendant is the employer of Korea △△△△△△.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that △△△△ has fulfilled its duty to explain each of the funds of this case.

B. Judgment on violation of the duty to explain

In full view of the above facts and the overall purport of the arguments, the following facts are as follows: ① each of the instant financial investment instruments classified as super-high risk, which appears to have been difficult to understand the profit and loss structure as a complicated financial expert, and thus, it appears that △△△△△ has recommended the investment of Plaintiff ○○ by emphasizing only high profitability for the investment. ② Plaintiff ○○ has invested in various kinds of funds prior to the instant fund and making profits available to the safe financial product guaranteed by the original, even if the investment rate is low; ③ The investment trend of Plaintiff ○○○ was 60 years old, and it was difficult to recover the investment risk of losses due to the investment risk of Plaintiff ○○○ △△△△○ △ △△ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 77.

It can be seen that Plaintiff ○○ did not deliver the investment prospectus of each of the instant funds to the Plaintiff, but only delivered only the amount of the advertisement site (B) (B). Considering the structure of each of the instant funds, transaction details and transaction methods, Plaintiffs’ investment situation, transaction risk, and the degree of explanation on each of the instant funds, comprehensively taking into account the structure of each of the instant funds, the Plaintiffs’ investment situation, the transaction risk, the degree of explanation, etc.,

The above investment recommendation of Plaintiff Lee ○-○ constitutes a tort by hindering Plaintiff Lee ○○○ from forming a proper awareness of the risk of each of the instant funds or actively soliciting transactions involving excessive risk in light of the Plaintiff’s investment situation, and neglecting the investor’s duty to protect the Plaintiffs, which is an investor.

Therefore, the defendant is the employer of Han △△△△, and is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the above illegal acts.

C. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion

1) Claim for extinctive prescription

The defendant asserts that since the plaintiffs asked the defendant about the occurrence of loss on or around November 2007 or around December, 12, 2007, the damages and the perpetrator was known at that time, and since the plaintiffs' lawsuit in this case was filed on May 12, 201, three years after the lawsuit in this case, the right to claim damages in this case had already expired before the lawsuit in this case was filed.

On November 2, 2007 through December 12, 2007, Plaintiff Lee ○○ asked the Defendant about the loss suffered by each of the funds of this case. However, such facts alone are difficult to find that Plaintiff Lee○ was aware of the aforementioned tort, and there is no other evidence to find it otherwise, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

2) Claim for denial of causation

The Defendant asserts that the occurrence of damages from each of the instant funds is due to an unexpected financial crisis in 2008, and that the occurrence of damages does not result in the purchase of each of the instant funds itself.

However, even if there were impacts on the international financial crisis in which the occurrence of damages to each of the instant funds was unexpected, such circumstances do not constitute a ground to determine the establishment of tort, and only do it constitute a ground to limit liability. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. The damages suffered by the Plaintiffs’ unfair investment recommendation by △△△△△△△, which occurred in the damages, are the remainder after deducting the redemption amount from each amount invested by the Plaintiffs. The damages amounting to KRW 40,429,440, as described in the table of Paragraph 1-b above, Plaintiff Song ○○, 118, 721, 253, Plaintiff Song ○○, 4,855, 139, Plaintiff Song ○, 27, 474, 994, and Plaintiff Song △△○, 45, 949, and 018, such as the table of Paragraph 1-b.

B) Limitation of liability

However, the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the aforementioned evidence’s argument:

In other words, the plaintiffs have invested large amounts of money without careful review by ascertaining the contents of goods invested in accordance with the principle of self-responsibility, profit and loss structure, investment risk, etc. ② reflects the intent of the plaintiff Lee ○○○○ in the selection of each fund of this case. ③ The plaintiffs have contributed to the expansion of losses by making reinvestment or new investment without collecting investment profits from the fund, ⑤ the occurrence of global financial crisis that was difficult to expect in 2008, which affected the occurrence of each damage, it is difficult to see that the damage of the plaintiffs was caused only by the defendant’s full liability, and thus, the defendant’s liability is limited to 70% in consideration of the above circumstances.

C) Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff Song Tae-tae, 28, 608 won ( = 40,429, 440 won x0.7), 83,104, 877 won ( = 118,721, 253 x0.7, 253 x. ; hereinafter the same shall apply), 3,398,597 won ( = 4,855, 139 x 0.7), 19,232, 495 won ( = 27,474, 990 x7), 32, 494, 990 x 7), and 20,000 won, 19,000 won, 19,000 won, 20,000 won, 32, 3164, 294, 194, 201, respectively, as prescribed by the plaintiff's complaint.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Choi Jong-soo

Judges Seo Young-ho

Judges Cho Jae-sung